Monthly blood and the God of life

originally posted by: pthena
What would be the religious status of a midwife? Would she be perpetually unclean, therefore permanently excluded from shrine activity? Or any person
engaged in helping others with health issues? Permanently excluded?

Would there have been any professional midwives? Or would the woman just be getting help from her mother and her aunts?
The Pentateuch does not bother specifying any rules about them, so it doesn't seem to be regarded as an important point.
On medical assistance in general, the most helpful guidance comes from what is said in Leviticus ch15 about men suffering from discharges of some
kind. "Anyone who touches his bed... anyone who touches his body... anyone who touches what was under him... he who carries such a thing." In each
case, the instruction is that the assisting person would wash himself and his clothing and be "unclean until the evening". I don't see that a midwife
need suffer any worse restrictions. "Wash and be unclean until the evening" must have been the general rule.

I'm saying that barren women bleed too, and that bleeding is medical proof that one is NOT pregnant, fertile or with child!

The stigma on being barren is exactly in line with my main theme, that bringing forth life and being able to bring forth life is thought to be a good
thing.

And a woman's period means they are unable to bring forth life, at least at this time.

I said: Why should a woman have to present an offering of a yearling lamb to a priest for atonement, from God, for the issue of blood, if it was
merely a cleanliness issue? That doesn't make sense.

You said: It doesn't make sense to us, because we don't merge the concepts of sickness and uncleanliness and sin, which is what the Israelites were
doing.

Giving birth is a NOT a sinful unclean sickness that needs to be mediated by a priest and the sacrificial life of a yearling lamb!

I've pointed out that hygiene, for the Israelites, is a sin issue. So the question is where the sin lies in this instance.

This is your interpretation, not theological fact. Menstruation, as well as giving birth are not sinful or unclean acts.

As I pointed out in the OP, they were demanding sin offerings from men who suffered "discharges" of almost any kind. Again, with one very significant
exception. In their minds, they associated sickness and uncleanliness with displeasing God.

Diarrhea and puss sure, But not sperm. There's your superstitious and misogynous exception.

The idea that it relates to the fact of bringing forth new life is ruled out by a number of factors;

And yet, according to the Bible, a sin offering is required to atone for the woman who does give birth! It's less of sin, as far as cleanliness and
purification needs to give birth to a male child! WOW!

So the most sensible explanation of that sin-offering is that it relates to the temporary hygiene implications of the birth event itself.

No, it isn't. It a misogynous excuse, because we know that it isn't true that women are unclean or contagious after giving birth, especially when it
come to gender uncleanliness, like giving birth to a female child. The most sensible explanation is superstition, ignorance and misogyny. Nothing
holy about it!

originally posted by: windword
And a woman's period means they are unable to bring forth life, at least at this time.

Nevetheless, it is also a symbol of the fact that they are the kind of humans who can bring forth life.

This is your interpretation, not theological fact. Menstruation, as well as giving birth are not sinful or unclean acts.

In other words, you agree with me that menstruation is not a sinful act.
The WHOLE POINT of the opening post of this thread is that the spirit of the law is NOT treating menstruation as a sinful act.
Since we agree on that issue, what's wrong with dwelling upon it and finding significance in it?

Diarrhea and puss sure, But not sperm. There's your superstitious and misogynous exception.

But this is the SAME exception that is being made for menstrual blood.
If sperm and menstrual blood are being treated in EXACTLY the same way, how can that treatment be misogynous?
They are getting equal treatment. That's genuine equality, madame.

NOT treating menstruation as a sinful act. Since we agree on that issue, what's wrong with dwelling upon it and finding significance in it?

Religious significance? No. Segregating women from society while menstruating doesn't have anything to do with hygiene or "God". Requiring women to
present a "sin offering" after giving birth, and to go through a period of purification based on the gender of the child born stems from ignorance and
superstition, not "God"!

They are getting equal treatment. That's genuine equality, madame.

No it isn't, not in your wildest dreams! When a man masturbates, he's unclean, after washing, until the sun sets...like thats logical and godly, but
a menstruating woman is unclean for 7 days!

originally posted by: windword
When a man masturbates, he's unclean, after washing, until the sun sets...like thats logical and godly, but a menstruating woman is unclean for 7
days!

There is an obvious reason for that difference. One discharge lasts longer than the other (and the legal mind always likes to "round up" numbers to be
on the safe side).
I was talking about the fact that neither event is treated as something which needs a sin offering. In that respect, the male and the female are being
treated in the same way.
If two people are being treated in the same way, it cannot be said that one of them is being privileged and the other is being mistreated.

But giving birth, and the bloody discharge, IS treated as sin! Bloody women freaked Yahweh and his men out! Therefore, they had to segregate women
from society while they bled, and a little bit after just to make sure!

The fact that the blood from menstruating women announces infertility and/or miscarriage belies your whole OP about blood belonging to Yahweh, because
of it's life giving properties.

originally posted by: windword
But giving birth, and the bloody discharge, IS treated as sin!

Once again I must draw attention to the fact that menstruation requires no sin-offering. It is NOT being treated as sin.

The fact that the blood from menstruating women announces infertility and/or miscarriage belies your whole OP about blood belonging to Yahweh,
because of it's life giving properties.

And again I simply repeat the answer I gave you the last time you made that point.

Nevetheless, it is also a symbol of the fact that they are the kind of humans who can bring forth life.

Let us be honest now. If any feminist standard-bearer had been making similar connections between menstruation and life-giving, you would have been
cheering her to the echo, would you not?
I am making an effort to enter into the minds of these people, to understand how they think. Why don't you try to do the same? A little less hatred, a
little more understanding.

Once again I must draw attention to the fact that menstruation requires no sin-offering. It is NOT being treated as sin.

IRONY.....

A menstruating women, whose blood announces either a miscarriage or infertility, is unclean, but not sinful. A woman who has just given birth, her
blood announces life, but requires a sin offering, and a prolonged period of purification, longer if she has just given birth to a female.

IRONY.....

Al bleeding women are unclean and required to be segregated from society until it is certain that she's stopped bleeding and been purified enough to
return to society. If the blood issue announced that new life was given, a sin offering of blood, a sacrificial lamb was required....... but Jesus'
blood cleanses sin. His blood was special, like an animal's cleansing blood! Not unclean at all!

originally posted by: windword
A menstruating women, whose blood announces either a miscarriage or infertility, is unclean, but not sinful.

Yes, a menstruating woman and a man with a discharge of semen are both in the same position; they need to wash (nobody in modern times would quarrel
with that), but they don't need to make a sin offering.
I surmise, and have suggested, a common factor which places them both in the same position.

The second half of your post goes off the topic of the thread. You know I don't do off-topic.

The second half of your post goes off the topic of the thread. You know I don't do off-topic.

You are complete discounting the sin associated with a woman who is bleeding after giving birth. That is not off topic. Jesus' blood being
cleansing, while a woman's blood, who has just borne life is unclean is misogynous and superstitious irony!

a reply to: windword
This topic was written around menstruation rather than birth. Menstruation is purely about blood, and I surmise that the uncleanliness around birth
includes other aspects of the event.
Sacrificial blood, whether the sacrifice is literal or metaphorical, is a different issue, and I'm not getting into it. I do have previous threads on
Old Testament atonement. New Testament atonement is a theme I'm saving for a later occasion.

a reply to: windword
We've been here before, haven't we?
Going off topic is one of your standard ways of getting the last word.
As usual, I will probably let you have it.
So have a good final post, and I'll see you next thread.

Science has menstruation figured out so we can move on to more enlightening things (and less offensive to women who are not unclean during or after
menstruation unless they are not on top of feminine hygiene and then not spiritually, just physically).

Of all the things in the OT, blood is a most disturbing obsession.

For this reason I reject the OT as anything divine. Good doesn't require innocent bloodshed or treat women as inferior.

Jesus makes this abundantly clear.

Blood carries oxygen to the brain. It's necessary for animals to live.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.